Is it a coincidence that:
-During the cold war the image of the universe and the theory that
explained it was an inmense nuclear explosion?

Advertising

-In the world dominated by the multicultural ideology and computers,
it is a multiverse and/or a computer simulation the preferred
paradigm?
That is not fortuitous for me. That is what I was trying to say with
the "canal effect" post time ago.
For me the deepest question is not what is true about the ultimate
reality. That is a question that never ever can be answered without
faith. Thus, that question it is not scientific even in the broadest
meaning that scientific inquiry might be considered. The deepest
question that puzzles me the most is the psychology of men across
ages asking themselves about the ultimate reality from which religion
of any kind derives, including the modern secularist ideologies.
And for the psychology of men shaped by natural selection can not and
will never be separated from a form of expected _good_ for him and/or
for their society. That good can derive from many sources that are of
two kinds: either the good for himself or alternatively, the good for
the society as a whole, with a middle, that promote the good
exclusively for the initiated ones of a reduced group .
The goods of the first kind are whatever idea that increase self
power, self worship. The second group correspond with what promotes
predictive power over the environment and in general, self
confidence in the community, as well as good moral rules.
Whathever ultimate explanation is ever created by the Mytopoetic
faculty of the mind, that was shaped by natural selection that faculty
match truth and good (and how believable can be by others) That is my
hypothesis.
That faculty construct and/or accept a myth about oneself, their
society and the nature of the ultimate reality. It does not matter if
the mythic speculation depart from an scientific or properly mythic
inquiry. Because the last step in the nature of ultimate reality need
a leap on faith. This leap is produced by the mytopoetic, unconscious
element that match Truth and Good.
On creating myths about oneself, the mythopoesis produces whatever
that favours oneself that is at the same time credible by others. That
is corroborated by scientists. The same happens with the mythos
produced for the own society and for the nature of the reality (in
which he and his society must have a teleological mission to be
coherent).
Whatever of the possible goods for oneself or the society is more
considered in the mythic elaboration depend on each one´s aims and
personality, and the zeitgeist of the age. The good for oneself can be
a great evil for the rest. But first your mythos must be believed by
others, to be believable by others, the result of the mytopoesis
should be fashionable.
You can not talk about daemons in the internet age. but you can make
believable your mytopoesis talking about "science" "energies" and
ovnis instead of religion spirits and miracles respectively. So you
can have your seat in the university or a chord of young women after
you, the privileged messenger of the creator aliens.
Should each one consider the nature of the goodness of their myths
that you, no doubt, have.
--
Alberto.
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.